5th Test: England vs Australia at the Brit Oval

[Hooper]

Bopara is a joke of a number 3, if he plays at 3 again then English selectors are worse then their Australian counterparts. He is so loose and looks too lazy to come in at 3. I've always believed your best (or near) should be your number 3 - and Bopara is a long way off. Maybe move Colly up there to steady an innings if England lose an early wicket or 2.

Changes for Australia: None. Why change a winning formula? Batting was brilliant and the bowling was exceptional. Johnson/Siddle/Clark/Hilfenhaus looks so much more damaging then a bowling attack with Nathan Hauritz included.

 

[King Pietersen]

Sureshot's on the button regarding Ramprakash. He showed in his first stint in Test cricket that he didn't have the bottle to perform, and that won't have changed. Sure he's scoring runs still, but he was scoring big runs when he was called up last time, and was a major flop. He'd be an awful selection. Trott, Key, Joyce, Denly, Morgan, Shah, Carberry and Moore should all be ahead of him in the pecking order.

There could be a call for Alastair Cook to move to number 3. That's where he started his Test career, and scored some big runs when he first came in, and he'd certainly be a better option there than Collingwood. This would allow Key to come in and open with Strauss, and set up a left hand-right hand combination which is abit of a change for the bowlers, and would mean the Australian's have to formulate new plans. Would also put Cook's technique at less of a strain, as he doesn't have to combat the new ball as much and I think it'd really help us become more solid, especially given that Cook averages 52 at 3, with 2 hundreds in the 7 Tests he's played in that position.

I'd then bat Trott at 4. He's scored a ridiculous amount of runs this season across all forms, and has been pushing for selection for a long time now, and deserves to be given a go. Then if he performed he'd be a shoe in for the ODi team, and the Champions Trophy squad, which is a good thing for England.

The rest of the side pretty much picks itself. Collingwood at 5 (although his place would be under pressure if Key and Trott perform, which could lead to him missing out, with KP coming in at 4 and Trott 5.), Prior at 6, Flintoff at 7 in place of Harmison, Broad at 8 (can't drop him after his performance in the last game, don't care about the situation, he was our only solid performer across the Test match, easily our best player in the last game), Swann at 9, Anderson at 10 and Onions at 11. That's a much stronger XI I think.

Probably by 4th XI posted in the thread, but this is my final selection

Strauss *
Key
Cook
Trott
Collingwood
Prior +
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson (if he's fit)
Onions

 

[Ollie_H]

Ramprakash may have averaged 27 in his 52 tests, but he actually averages 42 against the aussies. Which is more than I can say for most of our batting line ups.


The team my dad and I came up with is

1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Ramps
4. Trott
5. Colly
6. Prior
7. Freddie
8. Broad
9. Swanny
10. Jimmy
11. Onions

Bell just can't cut it, Bopara isn't looking the batsmen he did against the WI, as some guy said on 606 Ramprakash can't do much worse than a lot of the English batsmen at the moment. There just needs to be a huge shake up, a middle order that scores 16 together in both innings really needs to be changed.

 

[Howsie]

Bopara is a joke of a number 3, if he plays at 3 again then English selectors are worse then their Australian counterparts. He is so loose and looks too lazy to come in at 3. I've always believed your best (or near) should be your number 3 - and Bopara is a long way off. Maybe move Colly up there to steady an innings if England lose an early wicket or 2.

Changes for Australia: None. Why change a winning formula? Batting was brilliant and the bowling was exceptional. Johnson/Siddle/Clark/Hilfenhaus looks so much more damaging then a bowling attack with Nathan Hauritz included.

I don't know why so many people want Collingwood to move upto three. He's already shown that when the ball swings he doesn't know where his off-stump is, no way in the world would I bat him at three.

 

[King Pietersen]

Agreed. Collingwood's barely good enough to bat 5 atm, having him bat 3 would be a laughable idea. Almost as laughable as any suggesstion of recalling Ramprakash. Might as well bring back a few more guys, and go into the Oval with:

1. Geoff Boycott
2. Michael Atherton
3. Michael Vaughan
4. Mark Ramprakash
5. Graham Gooch
6. David Gower
7. Sir Ian Botham
8. Alan Knott
9. Derek Underwood
10. Bob Willis
11. Darren Gough

Call 'em up!!

 

[Hooper]

I don't know why so many people want Collingwood to move upto three. He's already shown that when the ball swings he doesn't know where his off-stump is, no way in the world would I bat him at three.

Well who else can bat at 3 for England?

You can't drop your openers to number 3 and Bell has sucked at 3 in the past. Leaving Collingwood.

Hooper added 1 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

Agreed. Collingwood's barely good enough to bat 5 atm, having him bat 3 would be a laughable idea. Almost as laughable as any suggesstion of recalling Ramprakash. Might as well bring back a few more guys, and go into the Oval with:

1. Geoff Boycott
2. Michael Atherton
3. Michael Vaughan
4. Mark Ramprakash
5. Graham Gooch
6. David Gower
7. Sir Ian Botham
8. Alan Knott
9. Derek Underwood
10. Bob Willis
11. Darren Gough

Call 'em up!!

That team would of crumbled for 102* as well...

Sidenote: That XI (if its the best English XI) is nothing compared to an All time Aussie XI...

Start the thread KP.

Hooper added 2 Minutes and 41 Seconds later...

Agreed. Collingwood's barely good enough to bat 5 atm, having him bat 3 would be a laughable idea. Almost as laughable as any suggesstion of recalling Ramprakash. Might as well bring back a few more guys, and go into the Oval with:

1. Geoff Boycott
2. Michael Atherton
3. Michael Vaughan
4. Mark Ramprakash
5. Graham Gooch
6. David Gower
7. Sir Ian Botham
8. Alan Knott
9. Derek Underwood
10. Bob Willis
11. Darren Gough

Call 'em up!!

That team would of crumbled for 102* as well...

Sidenote: That XI (if its the best English XI) is nothing compared to an All time Aussie XI...

Start the thread KP.

 

[King Pietersen]

Don't think I need to make a thread about it really, it's obvious that the best Australian XI would be better on paper than than the English XI. That's not the best English XI of all-time either, far, far, far from it in fact. No Hobbs, Barrington, Sutcliffe, Barnes, Trueman, etc etc. That last team was just a few older names that popped into my head, certainly far from an all-time England XI.

 

[Howsie]

Like KP has said Cook started his career for England batting at three, he could do it. I'd think about giving Michael Carberry a run, if that were to happen. Trott probably deserves it more.

The thing with Ramps is that he's making runs in the second division, it's pretty weak cricket tbh.

 

[Ollie_H]

The call up of Ramprakash really isnt as obscene as you make it out to be Dan.

holdenator added 2 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...

The thing with Ramps is that he's making runs in the second division, it's pretty weak cricket tbh.

The thing with saying that is that means that no one in Division 2 should get a call up just because they play in Division 2 and it's 'weak' cricket.

One problem with that, is Hughes scored all is runs in Divison 2 and look what happened to him . But Surrey were in Division 1 last season and he still banged out the runs.

 

[Howsie]

The call up of Ramprakash really isnt as obscene as you make it out to be Dan.

holdenator added 2 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...



The thing with saying that is that means that no one in Division 2 should get a call up just because they play in Division 2 and it's 'weak' cricket.

One problem with that, is Hughes scored all is runs in Divison 2 and look what happened to him . But Surrey were in Division 1 last season and he still banged out the runs.

Fair enough. But like you said look what happened to Hughes. I would acually love to see him play tbh.

 

[Ollie_H]

Ramprakash scored 1235 runs last season @ 61. He was the highest run scorer of the available England players. He was 4th, 1st and 2nd aren't eligble for England and the next one is retired. The next player who could be selected for England was Newman who scored 1044 @ 41. Both from Surrey who came bottom of Div 1.

EDIT: Bopara scored his runs in Div 2 and he got selected for England. Bopara also scored less runs than Ramps did.

 

[Skater]

With news of the Ramprakash speculation I think we should go in with this:

1. Strauss
2. Moore/Cook
3. Trott
4. Ramprakash
5. Collingwood
6. Prior
7. Flintoff
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Anderson
11. Onions

 

[Howsie]

Ramprakash scored 1235 runs last season @ 61. He was the highest run scorer of the available England players. He was 4th, 1st and 2nd aren't eligble for England and the next one is retired. The next player who could be selected for England was Newman who scored 1044 @ 41. Both from Surrey who came bottom of Div 1.

EDIT: Bopara scored his runs in Div 2 and he got selected for England. Bopara also scored less runs than Ramps did.

Probably just highlights the fact that picking at div2 player isn't a good idea

 

[King Pietersen]

:laugh Good point.

I'd be annoyed if Ramprakash got a call-up. He had his chance, and blew it, proved he didn't have the mental strength to score runs at the highest level. Trescothick the same, he had mental issues that stopped him from feeling comfortable and enjoying cricket at the highest level, move on. We've got a wealth of very good cricketers waiting in line, and I simply do not see the worth of picking a guy who's almost 40, and had a poor Test career in the past. Makes no sense whatsoever. Might as well try and bring Graeme Hick back as well. He was doing the same thing.

To sum up, my team = win.

 

[angryangy]

Clark worked at Headingley in the first innings, for about 7 overs. After arguing that his accuracy would aid the attack for a while, his second innings completely undid impressions of that spell. It wasn't so much that the lower order teed off on his good deliveries, but that he just didn't have many good deliveries. If he can only bowl straight when under little pressure, then there's not a lot of point.

Siddle was equally two-faced. His first innings bowling was effective, even if he only ripped up the tail, he still bowled with great purpose and achieved an important objective. In the second he just found ways to be hit. I could concede the benefit of doubt in that short pitched bowling was the plan for the lower order. However, it was an impatient and poorly executed plan. Johnson's bowling to the tail was far more skilful, using the short ball, but not as a stock delivery.

I still see Siddle and Clark fighting for a single spot, anticipating an Oval pitch that isn't a 4 seamer pitch. Gun to my head, I'd be leaning towards Siddle. I expect the tour match to be all about Siddle/Clark/Lee.